George Finch, 75, was sleeping in his recliner when he heard the sounds of glass breaking. Someone had broken a back window and was now entering his home. Finch then got his gun and encountered the interloper in his kitchen. "He stepped into the kitchen and he [the intruder] was right there. My dad told him to stop," Finch's daughter, Debbie Skaggs, recalls her father telling her. Finch told her the man "just kept coming" so he fired one shot, hitting the would-be thief in the leg. The wounded man, later identified by police as Kevin Richardson, made his escape through the same window he had entered, ran a short distance and collapsed. Richardson, who died shortly thereafter, had a history of theft, trespass and prostitution arrests. (The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN, 4/4/04)
A Cambridge. Minn., man awoke to the sound of breaking glass. He retrieved a shotgun and began checking rooms when he encountered three men who had entered his home. Two of the intruders fled, but the homeowner held the third man, later identified as Robert Hanson, at gunpoint while he awaited the arrival of police. The other two suspects were apprehended and the three were charged with aiding and abetting felony first-degree burglary. (Isanti County News, Cambridge, MN, 4/21/04)
A man approached the clezk at Forest Service Center in Lowell, Mass., and asked for change. When he approached the clerk a second time, he brandished a knife, pointed it at the clerk and said, "Don't do anything stupid, and give me all the money." The clerk responded by drawing a handgun and ordering the would-be bandit out of the store, reported Lowell Police Chief Bernard P. Nally. (Lowell Sun, Lowell, MA, 4/15/04)
Barbara Holland closed her used car lot for the day and drove home. She had checked to make sure the handgun she has carried since 1992 was loaded after a strange encounter at the car lot left her feeling uneasy. Holland pulled the car into the driveway and, as she entered her side door, Holland bent down to retrieve something she had dropped. Suddenly a man armed with a gun came rushing at her. Holland tried to slam her door on him, but the man shoved the door open and Holland fell back on her landing. Lying on her back, Holland snatched her pistol from its holster, ready to protect herself and her 15- year-old daughter who was home at the time. Her assailant's glare changed. "He looked surprised," she says. Holland recalls firing three times, but authorities later confirmed six shots. Police identified Holland's attacker, who died at the scene, as an ex-con named Clabe Hunt. (Detroit Free Press, Detroit, MI, 4/29/04)
Ronnie Breland and his son, Joshua, drove out to some property the family owned after a neighbor warned them that trespassers had been seen in the area. Breland drove a pickup truck, and his son rode beside him, armed with a 9 mm pistol. Breland discovered two men standing by a truck hidden in some trees. As the Brelands approached the trespassers, one man crawled deeper into the woods as the other raised his arm, holding a gun in his hand. Joshua Breland raised his gun in response. When his father yelled to the interloper, "Hit the ground or you're dead," the younger Breland said the man hit the dirt immediately, and the other man crawled back out of the woods on his belly. "I held them at gunpoint while my dad duct-taped their hands and feet," Joshua said. "Duct tape was all we had." Mobile County Sheriff's Department deputies picked up the two men, charging them with manufacturing methamphetamine and second- degree criminal trespass. (Mobile Register, Mobile, AL, 4/14/04)
Three armed men attempted to rob a jewelry store on East Sepulveda Boulevard in Los Angeles. They confronted the storeowner demanding jewels and cash. When they began shooting, the owner returned fire, shooting one of the gunmen. The three fled the store, but the wounded robber collapsed in a nearby market and died. (Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA, 4/7/04)
Four armed men wearing masks robbed the Central Mart in Pomona, Calif. One of the robbers fired several shots at the grocery's owner when the owner and his wife refused to open the store's safe. The owner fired back at the gunman, who limped along with his accomplices as they ran from the store. One of the robbers fired a second time at the owner when he went outside to check on his wife who was lying on the ground. The owner returned fire, but the gunman got into a blue van and drove off. Neither the storeowner nor his wife was injured in the incident. (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, CA, 4/15/04) |
"I think you have to turn over to the United Nations genuine authority, ask them with a little humility to be involved... ." Although he's talking about U.S. presence in Iraq, the notion of a humbled America bowing with "humility" to U.N. authority is the key to understanding what a John, Kerry Presidency will bring. Kerry's rule will include appropriate "humility" with respect to U.N. efforts to impose global gun control schemes on individual Americans-schemes thai were most forcefully rejected by President George W. Bush during the opening weeks of his new presidency. Of all the efforts by the Bush Administration to support the Second Amendment, none has been more important than slamming the door on U.N. plans to impose international gun controls on American soil. A New York Times editorial-published July 11,2001-told the story far better than I can: "The Bush administration might as well have sent Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association, to deliver its opening address to a United Nations conference on small arms earlier this week. In a shameless subordination of diplomacy to domestic political pandering, John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, told the gathering that Washington would not support an agreement to curb the international flow of illicit small arms if it infringed on the right of Americans to bear arms. " There was no "humility" in Bolton's opening remarks to the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons: "The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms." This was the Bush doctrine on U.N. imposed gun control. What George W. Bush was telling the U.N. was as simple as it was all-American. Don't mess with America's sovereignty and, above all, don't tread on our individual freedom. Period. Among the U.N. strictures shut down by the Bush doctrine was a universal firearms marking and tracing proposal that translated into a global firearms registry. In the works was a ban on private possession of small arms that had a military pedigree. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) - a participant in the U.N. conference - blasted the Bush pro-American gun-rights doctrine on two fronts: first with her twisted notions about the Second Amendment and by defining the real meaning of U.N. verbiage about "illicit small arms." As the New York Times reported, Sen. Feinstein "said that she, and her constituents, would support a treaty that called for international tracing of weapons and openness in gun sales." That sounds like international registration to me. So when Feinstein, or the U.M. small arms control crowd talk about "illicit arms," they always include legal guns - your guns, my guns. And they include all legal commerce. The Washington Times reported in its coverage of the Bush Administration refusal to bow to UN. gun control, "in his statement yesterday on behalf of the European Union, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel stressed the need to rein in illicit weapons while they are still legal... . 'We need to take steps to reduce the number of weapons.'" As for President Bush's embrace of the Second Amendment as a shield against U.N. intervention, the media was full of indignation, including the New York Times coverage quoting Feinstein saying, "She also challenged the frequently repealed assertions by American officials here that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed individuals the right to own guns. 'Mr. Bolton's position on the Second Amendment is in direct contradiction to decades of Supreme Court precedent....'" That tracks with Sen. John Kerry's March 2004 crossed - fingers Senate Floor statement supporting Sen. Feinstein's effort to extend the Clinton gun ban. "I believe in the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country ..." (That translates to exactly what Feinstein claims about the right to keep and bear arms). In his next breath, Kerry mirrored the UN. internationalist view on military surplus or military look-a-like firearms, saying, "however ...There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America...." Combine his record-voting against the Second Amendment interests at home 51 times since he came to the Senate-with his sycophantic allegiance to all things U.N. and you get a clear picture that among his first acts as President would be to erase the Bush doctrine on UN. gun control. Kerry said it all when he recently told NBC's "Meet the Press," "Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U-N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world." What he will likely turn over is America's sovereignty and our individual firearm rights and freedom. In stark contrast to Kerry's utter deference to the U.N., Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking to an audience at Westminster College, declared unequivocally that under the Bush Administration: "the United States will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." He received a standing ovation ... and rightly so. |
Many will call the police. Certainly, police officers want to help and will-if any are available and can get there in time. But the victim usually doesn't have time to converse with the police dispatcher, let alone hold the line for the next available operator. Even if the call is successful, by the time police arrive, the damage is done whether or not the violent intruder is gone. This raises an important question. Who has the primary responsibility and who is the first line of defense of your home and family? The obvious answer: you! You are better qualified than the government to evaluate your own personal situation. Your neighborhood, the level of crime in your area, your working hours and other variables must be considered and evaluated as you make decisions about your personal safety. You are in the best position to analyze your own situation and determine The safety tactics best for you, your home and your family. As a law enforcement officer, I learned that the true test of any security measure must be whether or not it gives the citizen a realistic chance of stopping an attack, home invasion or assault before the crime is committed and the damage inflicted. The tactic doesn't have to be 100 percent foolproof, but must have a good chance of stopping the crime. Remember, in truly dangerous situations, no police officer relies on sprays and trick wrestling holds. Physical barriers, such as dead-bolt locks, fences and alarms, can be effective in thwarting would-be burglars. Actual records, however, indicate that most people do not apply the rigid discipline necessary for these measures to be truly effective. Every door and window must be religiously locked; alarm systems activated at all times; and the garage door closed and locked every time. Some avoidance measures are also prudent and effective for use outside the home. What is the best route to walk or drive? Is this a good parking space for later tonight when I return to my car alone? Are the car doors locked? Do I have ready access to my keys? Where you drive, where you park and where you walk should be considered and, if applied consistently, these considerations can reduce your vulnerability to attack. There must be a limit, however, to the length decent people must go to rearrange their lives. Of course, utilizing such measures does not guarantee that you will not be targeted and attacked by a violent criminal. Even then, you have the primary responsibility to protect yourself and your family-before the police arrive-to stop the crime. You are entitled to have practical means that actually work. NBA does not presume to dictate to anyone what safety measures they should employ, We do know that, for millions of Americans, a firearm is a practical means that works. Owning a firearm available for personal protection requires significant thought, planning and responsibility- It should never be approached lightly. But the choice to own a firearm, to protect home and family, is a right that must always be respected and protected. The right of self-defense is one of the fundamental reasons for the Second Amendment and is, in fact, the most practical, everyday individual application of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is our duty to protect this very basic right because self-defense is meaningless without the means of defeating an attacker. Sprays, whistles, cell phones and hand-to-hand combat skills will likely be rendered useless in a violent attack by a serious, violent criminal. Yet, a firearm in the hands of a citizen can stop even the most violent attacker, prevent the attack and save your life and the lives of others. Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck's research shows that over 2 million people a year use a firearm to protect themselves from criminal attack. Kleck's research indicates the clear need for Americans to be able to defend themselves, as well as the fact that Americans know how to act responsibly and effectively in defending themselves with firearms. The anti-gun-rights crowd is always opposed to self-defense. They don't want to trust you or anyone else with the responsibility of gun ownership or any other effective means of defending yourself. If they get their way, Americans will be like the people in England where citizens can go to prison for defending their homes. But Americans have a primary responsibility for their safety and the safety of their families and, to help meet that responsibility, we have the Second Amendment right to choose firearm ownership. It is NRA's job to continue to protect that vital right. |